One question for Christians

[DeistPaladin]

Cute but irrelevant to what I said.

No, it really wasn't.

We have no holy book.
We have no articles of faith.
We have no churches we attend with ministers who tell us the Truth (with a capital T) from the pulpit.

So, of the two of us, which one of us has a problem with thinking for ourselves?

Yes, I noticed you pouted after I refused to give you traffic on YouTube.

No, it just took me a while to find the time to spoon-feed you because you can't be bothered to click on a link. Sorry for the slow service but I'm not here to be at your beck and call. You're going to have to pay me tuition if I'm to school you on a regular schedule.

False. Matthew never says where they lived.

What, were Mary and Joseph staying at their uncle Seymour's place? The text says "THE house" (2:11). If the house belonged to another, wouldn't we expect the owner and relation to be named, as the Bible is known to go into torturous detail otherwise. Frankly, that's a pretty important detail. House? Who's house if it wasn't theirs?

But OK, let's pretend that they were staying in a house, visiting their aunt Ruth or something. Why then did they stay in a manger because "there was no room for them at the inn"? (Luke 2:7). Why would Mary give birth in a manger, one of the least sanitary places for childbirth imaginable, when they could have just stayed at their aunt Ruth and uncle Seymour's place.

And no, a house isn't a manger. A house is a place people live. A manger is a place for animals and shit. Literally, the "and shit" part is not just an expletive but a description of what you'll find there.

Herod dying in 4BC is obtained from Josephus, not Matthew.

It's also obtained from my Bible in the footnotes. And if it's in my Bible, you know it must be true, right?

Luke also says that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod so this is not a contradiction.

No, Luke says she was pregnant during the administration of Quirinius. So she had a 10 year + pregnancy. Those sons of God take longer to bake in the oven.

Almost correct, Matthew never says it is Joseph’s hometown in Matthew 2- you added that part.

Why mention it at all, then? If Bethlehem was just a town where Joseph had to report for a Roman census (in an area ruled Herod the Great which wouldn't have been subject to said census) and Mary's water broke there, there was no reason at all to return to Bethlehem. The whole, "oh crap! Better stay away from there!" part (2:22), being warned by God no less, was completely superfluous. Joseph would have naturally returned to his home town if that had been Nazareth. Instead the Bible tells us:

NRSV 3rd Ed:
Matt 2:23
"There, he made his home in a town called Nazareth"

That verse doesn't make much sense if Nazareth was already his home town. The entire narrative nature suggests he had come to Nazareth for the first time. Certainly, if you were unaware of Luke, you would come to this conclusion.

I know it's hard, but when you read something, try not to read in the story you want to be there.

False, Luke does not actually say this.

Really. Let's go to the tape:

Luke 2:2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

False, Luke never says this.

Roll tape.

Luke
2:16 And they [the shepherds] came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger.
2:21 And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.
2:22 And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;
2:24 And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.
[skip ahead over verses about Simon and Anna and what they did and said upon seeing the baby Jesus]
2:39 And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.

In sum, they came, she gave birth, they circumcised, they presented, they sacrificed, they listened to Simon and Anna and then they returned home. What part of this escapes you?

Not sure how any of this is even relevant to denying that Christ ever existed, but obviously when you’re beat you’re just going to toss out anything and see if it sticks.

Try to keep up. If the story is bullshit, there's nothing left. The Gospels are the only detailed accounts we have.

Bart Ehrman insists that there was some guy named Yeshua who was some sort of end-times prophet who had some kind of ministry of some sort and preached some things but we're not sure what and had a brother named James. Yeah, OK, there were probably several if that's your criteria. It's the Gospel tales that I care about. Ehrman can pursue his "some guy Yeshua" in his ivory tower to his heart's content.

I’ve already refuted this nonsense for you.

Link?

Unlike you, I don't have an allergy to clicking on links.

I already refuted this one, Luke never says Jesus ascended on the same day he resurrected.

Stenographer, please read back the witness' testimony...

Luke 24:51 And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.

Demonstrate it.

Mark is well known to have originally ended at 16:8. My Bible tells me so.

False dichotomy, it was rolled away by an angel before Mary arrived at the tomb. Only the guards witnessed this.

Roll tape...

Matt 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
28:2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.

Three . One rolls away the stone and is seen by the guards. The other two are seen in the tomb by the women.

Again...

Mark 16:5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.
Luke 24:3-4 And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus. And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments.

All of these can be easily harmonized

Of course they can! Any self-contradictory story can be harmonized if you work hard enough and bury it with sufficient ad hocs.

Let me give you an example from a silly limerick we sang as kids at a summer camp I once attended:

1. One day in the middle of the night,
2. two dead boys got up to fight.
3. Back to back, they faced each other,
4. drew their swords and shot each other.
5. Two deaf policeman heard this noise,
6. came to kill the two dead boys.
7. If you don't believe this lie is true,
8. you can ask the blind man, he saw it too.

And now my harmonization using Christian apologetic reasoning...

1. "Day" can mean a 24 hour period, which might include the night.
2. Only those who presuppose naturalism would deny the dead can rise and fight as the undead.
3. It doesn't say they did both at the same time. Further, zombies might be able to spin their heads around to face each other while back to back.
4. They could have been armed with both swords and guns.
5. There are degrees of deafness. "Deaf" people might still be able to hear really loud noises.
6. "Kill" in this case means final death for the undead.
7. "Lie" was a mistranslated word. The original language could allow for the word to mean "story" or "fable".
8. The blind man is an embarrassing witness which is the best kind. If the story was made up, they'd have fabricated a better witness.

Ta da!

Do you also reject the historically accepted fact that Hannibal traversed the Alps in 218 BC?

ECREE

Um, Peter was one of Jesus’ disciples, that is what we would call an eye witness.

It's not the Gospel of Peter, now is it?

An eye-witness account is what the witness saw, heard, smelled, touched, tasted. Hearsay is what the witness heard someone else say he saw, heard, smelled, touched or tasted.

Even if this claim were true, which it is not, it would be the fallacy of poisoning the well.

Not when the credibility of the witness is essential to the witness' testimony.

Luke based his gospel on the testimony of eye witnesses like all good historians do.

Even if that was true, Luke is still not an eye-witness.

We have a first century fragment of a copy of John’s gospel so it was not a late authorship at all.

Link?

Isaiah 7 does in fact prophesize [sic] that the Jewish Messiah would be born of a young woman (virgin).

No, it doesn't.

[whispered] Pssst: this is your cue to show how it does. [/whispered]

God uses several double meanings like this throughout the preordained redemptive history documented in the Old Testament (the same applies to the example in Exodus).

Prove it. Don't tell me what someone "really meant" to write. Show me what they wrote. Otherwise, on what basis do you assert that a double-meaning was intended and in the manner in which Matthew used them?